Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Environment Pfas topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
House committee rejects judiciary substitute for PFAS Protection Act after amendments
Summary
The House Judiciary Committee voted to give a "do not pass" recommendation to the committee substitute for House Bill 212, known as the PFAS Protection Act, after members reviewed negotiated definition and compliance-date changes and debated exemptions and confidential business protections.
The House Judiciary Committee voted to recommend "do not pass" on the committee substitute for House Bill 212, the PFAS Protection Act, after members reviewed a package of negotiated changes to definitions, compliance dates and exemptions.
The PFAS Protection Act, presented to the committee as a collaborative product of stakeholders, legislators and the Environment Department, would regulate certain per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances. Secretary Kenny summarized four definition changes, a moved compliance date for intentionally added PFAS in some products to Jan. 1, 2032 at industry request, additional exemptions for unavoidable uses and new protections for confidential business information, and removal of a PFAS stewardship program provision at the minority’s request.
Committee staff described the definition edits as: adding "intended for direct food contact" to cookware; aligning the firefighting foam definition with another bill; adding an "official compendium" definition tied to a medical-device exemption; and removing redundant phrases from the PFAS definition about "standard temperature and pressure." Staff said the compliance date for some PFAS-containing products was changed from Jan. 1, 2029 to Jan. 1, 2032 to align with other states’ laws.
Committee members moved the recommendation and the roll call produced the committee’s formal recommendation of "do not pass." The motion was moved and seconded on the floor of the committee; the chair announced that the committee’s recommendation was "do not pass." The sponsor and staff emphasized that many changes had been socialized in advance with members and sought to minimize further debate.
Supporters and opponents were not heard in the transcript segment for this item; committee discussion focused on technical fixes and the removed stewardship provision, which minority members had argued did not serve New Mexicans.
The committee’s action is a committee-level recommendation; the bill’s future on the House floor will depend on subsequent floor procedures and any motions to reconsider or revive the measure.
The transcript shows committee staff presenting the changes and the chair calling and announcing the committee recommendation; no public witnesses were recorded for this item in the available transcript excerpt.
Notes: the committee substitute language and the final recommendation were announced during the hearing; text changes described by staff match the items summarized above.
